particracyfandomcom-20200215-history
Supreme Court of Rildanor
The Supreme Court of Rildanor or Conseil Constitutionnel is the highest judicial body in Rildanor. It was founded through an executive act signed on November 30, 3508 by the High King Philippe II. =Current Membership= Justices of the Court =Structure and Function of the Court= The Supreme Court is composed of fifteen Justices. 7 Justices shall be chosen every 10 years and 7 chosen every 20 years. 10 years is one term but they may serve more than one term. A Chief Justice is also picked by the Premier Ministre of Rildanor's party every 10 years and can be a present or former Associate Justice or simply a practicing lawyer. An individual may become a justice only through being nominated by the party and confirmed by a simple majority of the Assemblée nationale des Rildanoriennes. Nominations by parties should be proportional to the number of seats the party has held in the Assembly. He or she must have practice law for at least 10 years. A justice cannot be removed from office unless he or she is replaced, dies or is impeached. Appointments shall be made immediately upon formation of the court, and thereafter shall be made immediately upon the replacement, impeachment or death of a justice, in which case only the retiring justice or justices are replaced via a simple majority of confirmation in the Assemblée nationale. The Supreme Court shall decide the interpretation of the law. Ambiguous laws may be submitted to the Supreme Court for a ruling. If a majority of justices decide to hear the case, the Supreme Court will rule on the matter. Should any law or action be challenged for sake of being in violation of the Rildanorienne Constitution and or Treaties it is to adhere to, the Supreme Court shall have the power to decide the constitutionality of the bill before putting it into debate phase . With reasonable doubt of constitutionality, anyone may petition to have something reviewed, or with a legislative vote of 40% or with an executive order. Anybody may argue before the Supreme Court to influence the decision. A majority of justices must agree for a ruling to take effect, and justices may abstain from decisions.The Supreme Court shall hear criminal cases in the same manner. The defendant must appeal to the Supreme Court, and the court must agree to hear the case. The Ministre de la Justice will appoint a prosecutor to argue before the court, and the court shall hear both sides and rule on the matter. The Supreme Court's decision is final and binding on all of Rildanor until the law itself is changed by Assemblée nationale, or until the matter is again submitted to, accepted by, and ruled on by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has no further powers, such as inquisitorial powers or the establishment of common law. The court may not reverse laws passed by Assemblée nationale, block executive actions, or rule on any matter without it first being submitted for review by a third party. Rulings are to be made at least a year after the start of the hearing, to allow adequate time for both sides to make their arguments, although a justice can make his or her vote known ahead of time, in which case that is assumed to be his or her official vote upon the conclusion of the eight month period, unless he or she changes or rescinds his or her vote before the end of the eight-month period. =Famous Decisions= *Assemblée Nationale vs Ministre des Affaires estrangeres Re: Non-Recognition of the False Governments of Rebel States treaty 41% of the députés has challenged the Foreign Minister's proposal to ratify the treaty. The High Court voting 8-7 declaring the proposed treaty as unconstitutional and uninternationalist approach. Auditeur Mateaud wrote the concurring opinion that states that the treaty http://classic.particracy.net/viewtreaty.php?treatyid=2506 especially Article 5 is inhumane. The country must provide aid especially to those victims affected by hunger, diseases and war related incidents. Citing the general law on humanity, whether the legitimate country approves the giving of aid or not, aid must be given unconditionally. Meanwhile, Premier Président Aristide dissented and wrote that the decision of the recognized legitimate government must be respected at all times. He cited that the basic international law is the highest besides the country's constitutional law. The decision is final and executory. However, may be overturned after 10 years. So ordered. Voting Record: 1 Magnolia Steinmetz (PN) aye; 2 Renaud Curie (PN) nay; 3 Hubert Hebert (PN) nay; 4 Mario Sy (PN) aye; 5 Dimitri Sakhalov (PN) nay; 6 Andre Michel (PN) aye; 7 Simoun Lemaitre (PN) aye; 8 Jacques Malaurie (PN) aye; 9 Nicole d'Estaing (PN) aye; 10 René Cote (PN) nay; 11 Jérôme Letorneur (PN) nay; 12 Véronique Mateaud (PN) nay; 13 Pierre Lavigne (PN) nay; 14 Olympe d'Aelders (PN) nay; 15 Vincent Aristide (PN) aye; image of the voting results: tosscoin program http://s21.postimg.org/kat0q9hc7/assnat_vs_formin_luthoritreatyfalsegovs.jpg *Mordusian Luthori Royalists Organization vs Ministre des Affaires estrangeres Re: Non-Recognition of the New Mordusian Neutrality Pact The Mordusian Luthori Royalists Organization has challenged the Foreign Minister's proposal to ratify the treaty because of Mordusian involvement in the Majatran War. They proposed that the treaty be declared unsigned and illegal. The High Court voting 11-4 declaring the proposed treaty as constitutional and conforms to the legality of international law. Premier Président Aristide wrote the concurring opinion that states that the treaty http://classic.particracy.net/viewtreaty.php?treatyid=2510 has been modified from the original one that lacks a provision of giving aid to a country being involved in a war, which some people may declare that this is a breach to neutrality principles. To conclude, he cited that since the Majatran War is over, and Mordusia, ipso facto, cannot be sued because a stalemate occurred, no winners and losers. Meanwhile, Auditeur Dimitri Sakhalov dissented and wrote that the decision of Mordusia to aid Zardugal automatically is a ground for nonrecognition of its neutrality. He said that any country will forever doubt Mordusia's neutrality in the coming years and even centuries because of their acts. The petition is dismissed. The decision is final and executory. However, may be overturned after 10 years. So ordered. Voting Record: 1 Magnolia Steinmetz (PN) nay; 2 Renaud Curie (PN) nay; 3 Hubert Hebert (PN) nay; 4 Mario Sy (PN) nay; 5 Dimitri Sakhalov (PN) aye; 6 Andre Michel (PN) nay; 7 Simoun Lemaitre (PN) nay; 8 Jacques Malaurie (PN) aye; 9 Nicole d'Estaing (PN) aye; 10 René Cote (PN) nay; 11 Jérôme Letorneur (PN) nay; 12 Véronique Mateaud (PN) aye; 13 Pierre Lavigne (PN) nay; 14 Olympe d'Aelders (PN) nay; 15 Vincent Aristide (PN) nay; image of the voting results: tosscoin program http://s18.postimg.org/ah1473w5l/mordusroyal_vs_formin_mordusiatreatyneutrality.jpg * =List of Courts= *Aristide Court of Rildanor *Steinmetz Court of Rildanor * =List of Chief Justices= =Links= Rildanor Category:National supreme courts Category:Government and politics of Rildanor